Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Restore the Constitution as Ratified

I recently allowed myself to be drawn into a pointless discussion about the merits of the Constitution and possible revisions.

I'm not deriding anyone who is taking part in the discussions, or invalidating any of their positions. But for me, at this point, it is all Sparklies, and I allowed myself to be distracted. It is divisive, not cohesive.

I am working toward cohesion.

When 50 guys who visit these blogs get into seriously heated discussions about version X or version Y of a Constitution, what do you think will happen if a cross-section of "average" Americans send their delegates to weigh-in on the topic?

Here is my position: The US Constitution needs to be restored, as ratified, and implemented in the spirit of the DoI and BoR. That is the goal for which I am working.

The primary reason I am working for this goal: No document has ever been written to better set boundaries for governance that respects Liberty. No, it is not perfect, but it is the best ever written by men, and if implemented by Liberty-minded folks, it can only be modestly improved. But the Hologram folks who insist it was a conspiracy from the beginning, I just can't be bothered.

Improvements? As I said, in the spirit of the DoI and BoR. That means that all men are created equal and skin color and genetalia makes no difference.

From a practical perspective, we'll never get anyone in the NRA part of the world to fight for something that is, to their minds, smoke. AoC and any new Constitution is smoke. Our current Founding Documents are a frame of reference they can grasp, even if they do not understand them. It is a rally point that Americans can recognize.

I have one respectful comment here on Dio's piece, and I'll make more at his place as promised: Most of what he offers is already in place in the current Constitution, but ignored. Senators should be beholden to the State, as in the original. One argument he brings up, regarding who should be able to participate, was discussed in the original Convention. Should it be only land owners? Should women be allowed? Should members of the FSA be allowed?

Here is where I say the Constitution, as ratified, handles the FSA as voters: The Constitution as ratified does not PERMIT an FSA. If we Restore the Constitution, as ratified, and implemented in the spirit of the DoI and BoR, the FSA simply will not exist. No more handouts.

To those who say the Constitution lacks teeth and self-enforcement - Treason is in place and handles any attempt to corrupt. As to self-enforcement, no law can ever do it. It takes people to act. We already have laws on the books, as outlined in III to Liberty, against the very abuses we suffer every day, and none are enforced.

The concept of appointing a militia to enforce laws about Constitutional behavior becomes moot because of subjective arguments about "What is Constitutional" and the ability to stack any militia the same way they stack the Supreme Court with Establishment players.

You want to know how the Founders and Framers intended the document to be enforced?

Here's a story about a group of Vets who went to the Dem Headquarters and decided they would remove the above flag that was flying with President Obama's face on it.

That's how you enforce the ideals embodied in any Constitution or law.

You go and you do it.

You do not rely on others to do it for you, or do it to themselves.

You go and do it yourself. And anyone in your way catches some, too.

Restore the Constitution, as ratified, and implemented in the spirit of the DoI and BoR.

Then we can talk about tweeking it.

Here's the link to the story about the vets who live Jefferson's intent.



  1. You are absolutely correct in your points. Thank you for allowing my talking points to open up key issues in what we face.
    Yes, I agree that what was was better than any previous or since. My only point is as written in a recent comment at my site.
    "Several of my points in trying to bring the people into the system directly, instead of ‘duly elected representatives’ is to chain the people into the process over the long haul instead of allowing a class to develop (which it had started doing prior to the second revolution) and allowing the people to develop an apathy to the system."
    It sounds strange to use the word "Chaining" the people to the system, but if the system is "We the People" than the People need to be held to the system as well. It is not a one sided deal and we see the end result of what happens when the people lose sight of the pathway.

    And you may be right about the sparklies,

    1. It's only a Sparklie to me at this point, because I am trying to remain focused on topics that bind us while minimizing topics that show our differences. But that in no way delegitimizes the value of the discussion for you and others. Indeed, it may wake many people to faults in their logic and assumptions. So, keep at it. I think you mentioned something to the effect "We have little to do until it all collapses, so we may as well talk about it..." and that is absolutely a good use of time for folks who haven't settled all the issues in their heads. ;)

      I owe you a few comments at your place, and will drop by tomorrow at some point.


  2. You probably think I just want to argue, but that's not it. I try to discern (and share) the facts and their ensuing principles. I'm a businessman too, so I appreciate doers and producers. It's just important that we do and produce the right things!

    First,the flag incident. Apparently the vets didn't literally remove the flag, but persuaded the owners to do it. That's great, but what if they didn't? Apparently no laws were in technical violation, at least no enforceable (ahem) ones. Should the vets have taken it upon themselves to enter another's property and physically remove the flag? If yes, then that's a denial of Rule of Law (cool with me), and if no, then they really didn't "take it upon themselves" to fix the problem (also cool with me). I wonder what you're saying they should do in that situation. (Notice that I'm pretty cool with whatever others do, as long as they keep their paws off me and mine. I'd never fly that flag, of course, but I've been known to fly one that others may not like...I'd be disinclined to have someone else, vet or not, force me to take it down. OTOH, I'm also easily persuaded not to bother other people too much; I trust you see the distinction.)

    Elsewhere, you wrote, “However, I have been attacked for allegedly forcing Anarchists to comply with various aspects of the Constitution.”

    This is ambiguous because of the word "allegedly." IOW it's not clear whether the "attack" is wrong because it's false or because it's correct to force Anarchists to comply with various aspects of the Constitution. I asked the relevant questions there, a bit more clearly.

    I'm sure you recognize this as important because it too goes to the question of Rule of Law, and whether a Law (which is all the Constitution is) is sufficient justification for initiating the use of force in the absence of another person initiating any force himself. Naturally that's what the Constitution was intended to prevent, but as we see there's a huge chasm between the intent and the actuality.

    To Anarchists (whoever they are!), the Non-Aggression Principle is regularly brought up as foundational principle, and this directly relates to that. IOW, do you believe that the existence of a piece of paper can somehow justify using aggression against others? For that matter, do you believe anything can justify that, except the obvious case of defense?

    Thanks for addressing this stuff, if you're willing.

    1. Hi Jim, Sorry for so abruptly ending our dialogue over at WRSA. I often counsel folks to avoid Sparklies, and when it dawned on me I was in the middle of one, I had to follow my own advice.

      As to the Initiation of Force I agree with the principle, but I define it differently than most. Bush called it pre-emptive self-defense. I also modify Bush's definition.

      Here it is in a nutshell: Tyranny is bad.

      Advancing Tyranny, even if by non-violent means, will eventually result in violence being perpetrated against those who choose to live in Liberty.

      Therefore: If someone is flying a flag that advocates Communism, Socialism, or any other form of system that advocates the right of the collective having the power and authority to impose their will upon the individual, it is the advocate who is initiating force...even if they are simply walking down the street with a Mao sign, or voting for a guy who wants to raise taxes, or call for tougher gun laws, or flying a flag that encourages a Maoistic society.

      Those people are as guilty of imposing tyranny as is the guy wearing the boots and popping caps in the medula of good people.

      People who choose Liberty are justified in stopping them all. - those who take active steps and those who satisfy support functions and even those who perform morale functions for tyranny.

      They may STFU, or leave, or face the wrath of men who intend to be free.

      The greater good of Liberty trumps any silly law about a First Amendment "Right" to indoctrinate children in schools or vote tyrants into power or give tyrants money which can be turned into bullets, garrots or propaganda.

      The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

      Laws that advocate or help defend or propagate tyranny are void of moral force, and may be dismissed, and countered, by any means necessary to ensure that Liberty prevails.

      These are existential matters. There is no room for hesitation or compromise, beyond: STFU, leave, or face the gallows.

      Ends justifies the means? To a degree, yes.

      But the means may not be malum in se.

      The Constitution sets a foundation for governance by a moral people who respect Liberty. It is an abusive tool in any other hands.

      Taking those people from the controls of society is morally justified. Installing moral and Liberty-minded folks into positions of public trust is the only remedy.

      This is difficult given the nature of the overwhelming American population today. But the effort required is no excuse for avoiding the task.

      So: The Non-Aggression Principle is nice, in a nice world where everyone chooses to be nice.

      But in the real world, it is a Fail.

      The piece of paper does not justify using force against anyone.

      The ideals embodied in the piece of paper (Liberty) justifies any means necessary to be rid of any who mean to be Masters.

      The folks flying the flag took the decision, when faced with serious men who intended that the flag would come down, complied.

      Had the Dem's refused, I suspect the Vets on-scene would have taken it down.

      Would they have been right, by law? Nope.

      But real Americans tend to ignore stupid laws.

      The fight between Liberty and Tyranny is existential. Liberty must win. Once more Americans decide to act as did those vets regarding the flag, the folks advocating tyranny will fold. How many get thrown into ditches is up to them...

      Make sense?


    2. Impressive...you answered it all! Thanks.

    3. Yes....your thoughts make perfect sense to most of us following your blog.

      DAN III

    4. Dan,

      Off topic....... Mistake on the lake, or greek dogs and cruising the dock not far from the old brewry. You mentioned a town not longer ago, if you reside..... We might know each other.

      Billl Nye

    5. Hi Bill....how perceptive of you. You talking about the "PUBIC DOCK" ? You know, where it can be so "dreary" ?

      Name a time and place. We can chat.

      BTW....PATCOM coming 27-28 April to a town nearby, south of Tool City.

      DAN III

  3. Mr. K,

    This essay of yours leaves me much opportunity to comment. I won't because I fear I may digress.

    The one thought I'll leave is this: just because it's the "law" doesn't make it legal.

    I firmly believe that those US vets would have taken the heineous soetoro-obama flag down if the Marxists had not.

    We're headed toward civil war in this country. If my conversations with active duty NCOs is any indicator the US military will NOT stand by obama and against US citizens.

    It isn't going to be pretty. Do your PT.

    Great essay BTW.


  4. Dan, just so there's no confusion whatsoever--these aren't great times for confusion--I was very impressed, and grateful, that Sam addressed all the questions.

    If Sam wants to know what I think, Sam will ask directly. I took "Make sense?" as rhetorical. A simple, "Make it literal" from him, or equivalent, will elicit a detailed answer. Otherwise, it's his blog and his life and he should run both as he sees fit. That's very fundamental to me; notice my first sentence in my first comment.

    Separately, I've heard what you say about the military, and not just about active duty NCOs, elsewhere. About all I can say is, damn do I hope that's true. As I wrote elsewhere, "Anyone who thinks this twig ain't about to snap, must be crazy themselves." So thanks for the optimism, but history says don't make your bets too heavy.

    1. Mr. Klien,

      I'm regularly chastised for being extremely cynical. Your comments about me being optimistic would surprise many who know me. Ultimately, we don't know what the future holds. But if it holds 4 more years of the illegal Indonesian, I predict bloodshed.

      Let's pray the American military stands on the side of Liberty.

      DAN III

  5. Dangers of "Judicial Supremacy"



  6. Kerodin: "They may STFU, or leave, or face the wrath of men who intend to be free."

    Or face the wrath of the flag bearer who shoots them for taking down his flag. Is it just Mao/Che/Hammer and sickle? Or perhaps they don't like my Revolutionary flags (Gadsden etc.) or my Scotish/St George flags (part of my heritage) or my flag showing my favorite team, alama mater or beer. What if I put my Old Glory upside down, not as a sign of distress but of protest on the 4th instead of burning it? If a vet tells me he's pissed off by that and to fly it correctly, is that right?

    I've had veterans in net debates call me a traitor and other names because I dared to say I don't think real highly of the stars and stripes anymore. I view it as a symbol of federal oppression. I don't mind flag burnings because there are issues where I would burn a flag to make a point but I laugh at the "cause heads" who flag burn every week. I take them seriously when they try to or pass anti-liberty laws.

  7. JFP: The matter, for me, is Tyranny.

    Do you really think liberty-minded folks are coming for your Gadsden? How many bullets have flown your way over your team or beer choices? If any, shoot back.

    If you see the Stars and Stripes as a symbol of oppression, so be it. You are fighting oppression and advocating Liberty, unless I am mistaken, and how you advocate Liberty is what the Freedom of Speech is about in my book.

    Advocating tyranny, whether Mao or current support for the Tyranny supplied by Government StormTroopers is not protected speech - not from me and not from most groups of ticked Vets or other Patriots. And the sooner we all get fed-up to the point of serious action, the sooner we get rid of the shackles.

    I think most Liberty-minded people would have plenty of room to accept your protests against Liberty, even if they disagree with your methods or symbolism. I'd try to reason you away from burning the US Flag and holding it out as a symbol of oppression - but so long as I know you are actually protesting oppression and not Liberty, we have no quarrel.

    And any "Patriot" who doesn't give you full room to protest tyranny as you see fit isn't much of a serious Patriot, is he?

    Make sense?


  8. That flag....Burn it.

  9. ALCON,

    Today I refuse to fly or wear an American flag. I will not say the Pledge of Allegiance nor sing the National Anthem. Nor will I stand during either. Today the American flag represents tyranny not only in foreign countries but here also.

    Mr. TL Davis sums up my thoughts exactly. May I refer you to:

    tlinexile.blogspot.com Mr. Davis' essay is titled NO GLORY IN "OLD GLORY" ANYMORE and is dated 10 OCT 11.


  10. "And any "Patriot" who doesn't give you full room to protest tyranny as you see fit isn't much of a serious Patriot, is he?

    Make sense?"

    I see your point Kerodin but I don't think I can agree with you on it, not yet anyway. I'm coming from the men's rights movement where I've heard conservative types and veterans deny the obvious and support the tyranny, for to do so would rock their world too much.

    The Obot flag is typical election cult of personality tripe, far from a new thing (see past election campaigns, bikinis, bumper stickers, tshirts, food wrappers etc.). Offensive no doubt but it says more about the flyer's intent and I want them to self identify. Makes it easier to throw big brother references and allegations mindless hero worship at them.

    This blog post puts it well I think:

  11. Thank you for this commentary. I've struggled with this question for some time now, having been raised with a traditional Christian ethic of right and wrong. Deciding what to do about our country, what is moral, has been difficult. You have brought significant clarity to my thoughts. We have been brought up to believe that legal and right are synonymous. That isn't true, but it is a difficult thought pattern to break.

    One of my favorite authors, Robert Heinlein, proclaimed through his characters that for a moral, intelligent person the law was irrelevant - that they would do what was right, regardless of the law, then accept the consequences of their decisions. He took that position to extremes for literary effect, but I think it is a fundamentally true thought.


Please post anonymously. III Society members, please use your Call Sign.